<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] updated Milestone AND Addenda - based on JAS WG Nov 2 conference call
- To: Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] updated Milestone AND Addenda - based on JAS WG Nov 2 conference call
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 12:16:11 -0400
Hi,
Thanks for getting the updated final document out so quickly.
I made a pass through it before proceeding to the 48 hour last call. I think
that the following need to be corrected before I initiate that call. Unless
others find problems in 21-1 or in my recommended changes, I would like to
start the last call once Karla has had a chance to make the following changes.
The corrections and recommended changes that I noticed:
228: Developing Nations/Countries; Emerging Markets/Nations/Countries
I think we agreed that through the document there would be only 2 terms of art
used:
- developing countries
- Emerging markets/nations
So this heading should read: Developing countries; Emerging markets/nations.
and through the document those are the only terms that sould be used to refer
to this concept.
This affects lines: 234, 461/462, 625
229: These terms are often use in this Report
replace 'use' with 'used'
230: classification and it will accept a classification
replace 'it will accept' with 'and recommends using'
232: these organizations might update its classification
replace 'its' with 'their'
233: acknowledges that agencies that if the future participate
replace 'if' with 'in'
234: 'developing nations/countries' should be 'emerging markets/nations'
237: The section is not numbered. And somehow this throws of the number
later of section 3 at line 531. Need to fix the numbering.
461/462: 'markets/developing countries' should be 'emerging markets/nations'
614: and, if case there is any reduction,
Replace 'if case' with 'in case'
625: 'developing/emerging country' should be 'developing country'.
660/661: yellow highlighting should be removed.
-----
Note about the 48 hour last call:
I recommend the following procedure. During that time, if anyone spots a
substantive issue, the last call timer will halt until the issue has been fixed
and then will resume. If there is less that 24 hours left to the last call
timer at the point of a halt, the last timer will be set to 24 hours so that
everyone has some daytime in which to review the last changes.
-----
I recommend that everyone review the addenda and send comments to the list. We
will put this on the agenda for the Friday meeting, but it would be good if we
did not spedn the entire meeting on that document.
Thanks again,
a.
On 2 Nov 2010, at 17:37, Karla Valente wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Please find attached:
> 1. The Milestone Report incorporating today’s suggested modifications
> 2. Updated ADDENDA
>
> What do we need?
> 1. Final Review and approval of Milestone Report. Once this is done, I
> will submit to translations and post for public comment
> 2. Discuss pages 23 to 37 of the ADDENDA– this is the Summary and
> Analysis of the snapshot Public comments received between June 16 to August
> 23 2010
>
> Avri, Evan:
> I have not touched the Charter yet. If you expect me to do the amendment,
> please let me know. I believe after we review and agree on the PC, we need to
> get the Charter updated and plan for Cartagena sessions.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Karla Valente
> Product/Services Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Direct: + 1 310 301 3878
> Mobile: +1 310 936 4639
> Skype: kdlvalente
>
> <Draft Final Report JAS WG v 2 21.doc><ADDENDA- JAS WG NOV2.doc>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|